User:FacetsOfNonStickPans/Signpost Gallery Submission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost



Signpost Gallery Submission

Do Wikipedia editors need to be stoics?

Signpost poll
Should a Wikipedia editor be a stoic?
 
 
 
 
  Yes (47%; 22 votes)
  No (40%; 19 votes)
  Not sure (13%; 6 votes)

According to Stoicism...

So is this a good school of thought to apply to everyday tasks on Wikipedia?

No more bad days. No more good days.[edit]

In the face of daunting odds on Wikipedia, though surely not so daunting as the odds of Mohsen Hojaji when the word "stoic" was connected to his final image, how stoic must we truly be here?

But there is a catch. Stoicism for Wikipedia editors can only be achieved through writing. It is our words here that create the images of our philosophy and it is the words through which we can define a person as a stoic here.

If you aren't a stoic by birth you could act like one?[edit]

But...[edit]

But then again, what would happen to the significance of barnstars. Isn't receiving a barnstar suppose to be pleasurable? And if so, does being a stoic do injustice to the entire concept of giving and receiving them? (Sigh as some great philosopher once said, too much philosophy is one's ruin)

The most important part[edit]

The final part of the lines quoted say, "by using one's mind to understand the world and to do one's part in nature's plan, and by working together and treating others fairly and justly..." ... this seems important, really important, even to me, a wannabe stoic. But what would others think of a stoic Wikipedia editor? Are they are rarity nowadays... or are they more common than say the Epicureans?

As an afterthought, bots on Wikipedia are the true stoics.[edit]

full width content